Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Denier weirdness post of the day @wattsupwiththat

An odd admission at WUWT (archived here). Not that what is written is wrong, just that deniers at WUWT aren't normally as up front about their deviant behaviour. By deviant I'm referring to the fact that in their real worlds, deniers wouldn't as often come across people who reject science with such vim and vigour. It's only because of the Internet that they can find other people receptive to their wacky ideas. The Internet enables a small pool of science deniers from around the world (or the US, Canada and Australia) indulge in the illusion that their conspiracy theories are "normal" - taking comfort in numbers.

Anthony's put up a postcard with words that all WUWT-ers live by:

That was a very well laid out, rational point.

But I will still hold to my emotional opinion based on no facts or evidence.

Anthony's wondering if a petition to Facebook to ban denier nonsense will have legs. According to the article he copied and pasted, most of the stuff you read at WUWT contravenes Facebook policies:

Facebook doesn’t have too many rules, but the very last one reads that, “Pages must not contain false, misleading, fraudulent or deceptive claims or content.”

Anthony even left in this bit, which describes his blog to a T:

The question then, is whether or not claims that say global warming has stopped and an ice age is imminent, that climate scientists are fudging the data, or that Climategate showed wrongdoing would all fall under false, misleading and deceptive claims. We don’t know what else you would call them, so perhaps a ban would be warranted after all.

From the WUWT comments

The comments echo what I wrote above. Deniers take comfort in numbers, trying to reassure each other that their various and contradictory weird and wacky delusions about climate are somehow "normal". They want the freedom to hold to their emotional opinion based on no facts or evidence.

Paul Westhaver avoids anything that would threaten his fragile illusions:

June 22, 2015 at 8:09 am
This is an example of why WUWT is important and what attracts me to read and comment here rather than on Facebook. I NEVER use or view Facebook. Freedom of speech is to important to leave in the hands of Zuckerberg and Sandberg.
Incidentally, the upcoming generation has ceased to use Facebook apparently.. Opting for Instagram etc. Facebook will follow the generational path of MYSpace.

tom s is damned if he's going to let reality (from leftists or the White House) interfere with his conspiracy theorising. Shades of The Authoritarians:

June 22, 2015 at 8:34 am
Since the leftists have been in charge of universities, news media and the whitehouse. They have no time for dissent. They are the ninny-nanny’s on your block and will do whatever it takes to force you to submit to THEIR beliefs.

Gubulgaria's lone (if snarky) voice of reason doesn't register:

June 22, 2015 at 8:14 am
Have evolutionists and pro-vaccinators lost the argument as well? .
Perhaps you should have a big party with the anti-vaxxers and creationists to celebrate winning the argument?

Patrick claims to have been "banned" from Facebook. I'm guessing that all that happened is that someone he was spamming with denial simply unfriended him.

June 22, 2015 at 8:16 am
Yup! I for one can say I was banned from Facebook because of complaints about my views on a-CO2 driven climate change. No facts or science needed.

Stephanie Clague's thought could have benefited from a proof read, though I don't know if it would have been much improved:

June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am
Who among us denies we have a climate or even that climate changes?
The term should be banned, it is a hate filled smear and a poisonous politicised created by the most evil far left ideologies to damn their enemies.
We could them reality deniers or debate deniers, only those who know they cannot defend their position in free debate seek to close it down with such determined spite.

tom s disowned a friend who didn't reject science. Too upsetting.

June 22, 2015 at 8:43 am
I de-friended an old school mate for his daily diatribes on this subject. I argued with him almost daily. He’s a big fan of skeptical science. I could not take it any more and simply and courteously gave him the boot from my friends list. It was seriously causing me stress. And this guys’s a scientist as well but believes only one side and one side only….he lives in large house and rebuilds old cars….fossil fuel burning cars. I asked him about that and it sent him in a tizzy. I told him he’s a bit of a hypocrite….it was beginning to get nasty so I said, buh-bye!

June 22, 2015 at 8:42 am
To be objective about this, any idiot can get a few thousand people to ‘sign’ a virtual petition. That said, it really does speak volumes about the totalitarinism of the Warming Alarmists.

This is a good thought :) aplanningengineer says if Facebook is good enough for flat earthers then it's good enough for science deniers:

June 22, 2015 at 8:52 am
The Flat Earth Society has a Facebook group. Facebook has groups and individuals promoting homeopathy, psychics, fortune tellers, vaccine opposition, fad diets, different religions (which can’t all be true) and so on. I do not think Facebook could even begin to ban such items based on evaluations of their truthfulness (nor would I support efforts to do so). There is no way to draw the line once you start down that path.
The numbers are small and hopefully it is and remains a very limited group promoting this frightening idea. But it shows that there are some whose environmental fears will over-ride most any other value or consideration.

RHS seems to think that flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate disinformers and AIDS deniers are doing the world a favour:

24 comments:

Will hatred and intolerance of alternate viewpoints in science trump free speech?

Proves that he doesn't understand at all how science works. Of course 'alternate viewpoints' are allowed. But they tend not to stick around for long unless they have evidence to back them up.

These guys are *always* confusing opinions and/or beliefs with facts and evidence. And their opinions are quite transparently based on their free market ideology, aided and abetted by a conspiracy theory or two. Mix all that in with a dash of D-K, and you've got the current, perfect recipe for inaction.

It may be that the abuse of free speech by fossil fuel industry shills, putting the welfare of billions in harms way, will ultimately serve as an excuse for its curtailing by the next dominant world power. But, obviously, Anthony would refuse to see it in those terms.

I'd just like to point out that for any deniers reading that postcard, THEY THEMSELVES would be the ones laying out the rational point, while SCIENTISTS would be the ones holding on to their emotional opinions.

They can't see the forest for the trees, and they can't see themselves as others see them. (Lewandowski, anyone?)

David Thompson from WUWT comments whines and complains about NOAA's Facebook page:

"They refuse to discuss anything that disagrees with their conclusions and then threaten people to being banished if they do disagree with their conclusions. The official scientific argument they propose is that the science is settled and there is no time to question it. One guy was banished in that very thread for no other reason than asking questions that NOAA did not want to answer."

Yet when you read his Facebook comments and the responses from June 17th, the reality is quite different:

He heh. Typical AGW denier behaviour. David Thomson regurgitates the standard denier talking points (e.g. climate has always changed, it's all natural, no evidence humans are the primary cause of recent changes, blah, blah, blah...) over there, then blows right by the perfectly good answers by NOAA and continues to spew his crap.

As soon as someone tells them that we are the primary cause of recent temperature rises, you can just see their eyes glazing over and specks of spittle flying as they furiously pound out their Gish Gallops on the keyboard...

The Mod there is one of my favorite. No-bull and straight forward: if you don't provide scientific citations you don't belong on a scientific page. As it were, they also block people for inappropriate behavior; a friend who writes for SkS was blocked because he was being aggressive himself. They don't have an agenda, they just have standards.

If contrarians would ever admit that their talking points were discredited and stop using them afterwards then all would be well. But since they repeat the same dross with incessant enthusiasm, they are going to lose their place at the table for breaking primary rules of discourse.

Repeating debunked talking points is indistinguishable from chronic and deliberate mendacity and must be treated in the same way.

"It sounds as if they think that climate “deniers” are spouting false science, when they should be wary of the junk and false science of the pro-global-warming-by-man people. What a shame to ban people who only want the truth out there and keep those who would mislead the public while pursuing a political, entirely unscientific agenda."

Was reading a piece the other day about an entirely unrelated kerfuffle, and someone described what they saw at a computer science conference. Two eager young scientists were at the podium presenting their draft paper. Within two minutes you could see people quietly getting up out of their seats and queueing up at the microphones in the aisles waiting for their chance to speak. When that time came they ripped it to shreds. Politely, but unmistakably.

If these clowns saw how real scientists conduct scientific discussion and "debate", they'd quiver in terror. (I have heard that physics and associated disciplines are a fair bit less forgiving than maths and some others.)

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)